Court seeks government views
on Jan 9, 2006 at 10:13 am
The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Justice Department’s views on two new cases, one involving the U.S. embargo of Cuba, the other a major issue of patent law, as the Justices returned to public sessions after a four-week recess. No new cases were granted review.
The Court asked the U.S. Solicitor General to react to the appeal in Empresa Cubana del Tabaco v. General Cigar Co. (05-417). It tests the degree to which the courts should defer to the Executive Branch on whether the Cuban embargo bars judicial relief in a trademark case. The dispute involves who may use the brand name “COHIBA” to market cigars. A Cuban company, Empresa Cubana del Tabaco, which claims that the brand is the most prestigious name on Cuban-made cigars, sued in U.S. courts to prevent an American company, General Cigar Co., Inc., from using that name. Ultimately, the Second Circuit Court ruled that the U.S. embargo of Cuba barred U.S. courts from deciding the case.
The Court also sought the government’s views on a case asking the Court to clarify when a product or process invention cannot be patented because it had been created before, even though not recognized at the time. The case involves a dispute over the patent for the active ingredient in the anti-depressant drug sold under the trade name “Paxil.” It is SmithKline Beecham v. Apotex Corp. (05-489).
Most of Monday’s action by the Court involved the denial of review of new cases. The Court took no action on two significant cases it had considered at its Friday Conference: the federal government’s appeal on the constitutionality of the federal ban on so-called “partial-birth” abortions, and an appeal by Colorado Republicans in an important case on state legislatures’ power to redistrict a congressional delegation’s election boundaries after a court-ordered plan has gone into effect. There was no explanation for the failure to act, and nothing of significance could be read into it.
Among the cases the Court refused to review was an attempt to get further clarification on a Sherman Act antitrust case that the Court had decided in 2004, Empagran S.A. v. Hoffman-LaRoche (05-541), and another seeking a second look at a case testing the option of foreign governments to sue in U.S. courts to recover unpaid taxes owed those foreign states. The appeal in European Community v. RJR Nabisco and Republic of Colombia v. Philip Morris (05-549) involved a test of the so-called “revenue rule.” The Court had sent that case back to the Second Circuit Court for a new look after the Court decided Pasquantino v. U.S. in 2005. The Second Circuit reinstated its prior ruling, and the new appeal was filed, without success. The case involves alleged smuggling of cigarettes.
The Court also turned aside an attempt to get the Court to clarify the continuing legal significance of its 1985 ruling limiting subsidies of sectarian education in public schools; the earlier case was Grand Rapids School District v. Ball. The new case was American Jewish Congress v. Corporation for National and Community Service (05-282). The case involved a challenge to subsidies under the AmeriCorps education awards program, providing grants for the placement of teachers in public and private schools with teacher shortages. The Corporation that runs the program had selected some religious organizations for grants, and the AJC challenge contended that the funds were used to support indoctrination in religion. The D.C. Circuit Court rejected the challenge.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., took no part in the Court’s consideration of the case. He was on the D.C. Circuit at the time the case was denied rehearing en banc there. He was not on the panel for the decision below.
